Cheating in Football
Cheats or Winners?
Cheaters never win. At least that’s what our mommies and daddies have always led us to believe. In the world of football, however, we know that that’s not always true. Sometimes, cheaters win, and win big.
In the high-stakes world of professional football, where money, fame, and pride are coveted by all, even the strongest and most disciplined players can be tempted to cheat. The reward is too great for players not to cheat, and sometimes, players can even be hurting themselves and their teams by not trying it. Indeed, if “cheaters never win” is one old saying, then “if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying” is another one.
Generally, the three biggest areas for cheating in football are diving, doping, and match-fixing. Let’s take a look at some of the biggest examples in each of those areas:
Diving
Doping
Match Fixing
and a special addition, Famous Handballs
If you have any additions to make to these lists, let us know in each individual article’s comments section.
I was just wondering, how does the FA combat doping? How often are players regularly tested? I don’t think its that big an issue, because a player is taking a big risk that has a small impact in the game, because the match is played by 11 players and not just one.
I believe that match fixing in the Premiership is highly unlikely, as the players are already earning so much money that there is little incentive to fix a match. But in the lower leagues, especially in League 1 and 2, I wouldn’t be surprised given the pittance that players are paid and the advent of worldwide internet gambling.
Your article has made me think, and I will probably be writing a post about it (I’ll make sure to have a trackback to this) on my blog, http://www.moneybonzai.info.
But sometime people tend to remember the who is the winner instead of who is cheating. Everyone know Argentina won the World Cup 1986, but not everyone know Maradona scored with his hand.
> Generally, the three biggest areas for cheating in football are diving, doping, and match-fixing.
Really ? How about intentional fouling ? Especially in the box, knowing that the ref usually won’t give anything, especially if the foul is professional ? Best example: Cannavaro against Podolski in the 2006 semi. And the Hand of God, of course, even if wasn’t a foul and not in the box (not in the box of God, anyway).
This fixation with diving is counter-productive IMO. Diving is bad, but it is *not* the worst thing in football. Besides, it’s the only means attackers have to even the score a little, given the way refs favor defenders.
Sorry FF, can’t agree on that one. All games are made up of rules and people play to the rules as they see fit.
As a centre-half of many years I frequently gave away fouls or even dead-cert bookings to save a dangerous situation evolving.
This has always been part of the game and is not cheating. If the rules allow the scope then people will play to that.
Also, your comment: “Especially in the box, knowing that the ref usually won’t give anything.” is just silly. Penalty’s and red cards are given on a regular basis and quoting an exception does not disprove the rule.
> Sorry FF, can’t agree on that one. All games are made up of rules and people play to the rules as they see fit.
As a centre-half of many years I frequently gave away fouls or even dead-cert bookings to save a dangerous situation evolving.
> This has always been part of the game and is not cheating. If the rules allow the scope then people will play to that.
And why doesn’t the same thing apply to diving ?
As for the penalties, sure, some are given, but my impression is that more are missed. I might be wrong but I don’t think so, at least from the tournaments I’ve covered on my site I have a strong impression that this is how it is.
I see what you mean, you mean that if a defender does a foul openly to stop a dangerous attack, and the ref can see it to sanction it as he sees fit, then that’s not cheating. That’s highly debatable IMO, actually I definitely don’t agree, I still think it’s cheating. But a better point is, many times it’s not like this, especially at high level and in the box. They’ll do of course anything they can to conceal it and leave the ref with enough doubt so as not to blow the whistle, and as I said many if not most times they’ll succeed. Now this is IMO every bit as much cheating as diving is.
The feature on cheating is about gaining an advantage by trying to alter the outcome of the game outside the rules of the game. I see how FF says that deliberate fouling can be taken as cheating, but whereas it’s possible to see the changes in a scoreline due to matchfixing or diving, it’s not so easy to see such changes because of deliberate fouling (because refs miss the foul or choose not to award it is a different story, that’s not cheating, that’s less-than-perfect refereeing).
> but whereas it’s possible to see the changes in a scoreline due to matchfixing or diving, it’s not so easy to see such changes because of deliberate fouling (because refs miss the foul or choose not to award it is a different story, that’s not cheating, that’s less-than-perfect refereeing)
I find it hard to believe you’d say this. In deliberate fouling as well as in diving, it takes one offender to break the rule and conceal it from the ref, and one less than perfect ref not to spot the cheating. Both can lead to changes in the scoreline, as you put it. How on earth are they so different that one is cheating and one not ?
I can see 3 reasons why you’d think so. First, diving, at least systematic one, is perhaps more recent. We’ve gotten used to intentional fouling and see it as part of the game. Which it may be, but so is diving, and both are equally wrong IMO. Second, with fouling there’s a fine line between “legitimate” and intentional. You go for the ball with a degree of risk of missing it and bringing the opponent down instead. Up to a point it’s OK, after that it’s cheating. With diving things are clearer, it’s pure intent by definition, at least when there’s no contact at all. And third, fouling is usually done by defenders and diving by attackers, and we tend to favor defense over attack. This comes from real life and is OK here, but less so in football; attackers have the right to exist and actually it’s them who make the beauty of the game. So you might want to rethink this.
While these are all valid reasons up to a point, it doesn’t change the fact that intentional fouling, well concealed from the ref, is as much cheating as diving is.
> but whereas it’s possible to see the changes in a scoreline due to matchfixing or diving, it’s not so easy to see such changes because of deliberate fouling (because refs miss the foul or choose not to award it is a different story, that’s not cheating, that’s less-than-perfect refereeing)
Besides, Ahmed, your argument is logically flawed. Regardless whether the ref spots it or not, a foul, deliberate or not, *can* lead to changes in the scoreline. So if it’s intentional, it’s cheating by your very definition. Especially if it’s done in critical circumstances.
Deliberate fouling, knowing you will probably be booked and taking your medicine accordingly is playing the rules not cheating. Diving to try to deceive the referee is a different thing altogether.
‘Deceptive’ fouling is very difficult to do and there’s never any guarantee you can get away with it.
But the overall point is this. Even with all the replays we get these days people constantly disagree as to whether players dived or not, deserved a yellow/red card or not etc. so at the end of the day it all comes back to judgement and opinion.
However, if you fail a drugs test or are caught match-fixing the evidence is conclusive (or at least can be challenged in law).
> Deliberate fouling, knowing you will probably be booked and taking your medicine accordingly is playing the rules not cheating.
Can you point me to the place in the Laws where it says so ?
> ‘Deceptive’ fouling is very difficult to do and there’s never any guarantee you can get away with it.
As with diving. There are never guarantees. The best one can do is study the italian masters.
“Can you point me to the place in the Laws where it says so ?”
FF; The laws only address what’s allowed and what the punishments should be, which is exactly my point. Understanding this you play them to your (perceived) advantage i.e. accepting a booking to stop a dangerous move (there’s a distinction between ‘playing the rules’ and ‘playing TO the rules’.) They make no reference to ‘cheating’.
I agree on the diving point but don’t really accept the term ‘deceptive’ fouling. In today’s game there very little place to hide in this respect.
Well, in my book intentionally breaking the laws to your advantage is cheating. To you, as I understand, it’s not, unless it’s hidden from the ref in order to avoid proper punishment. So we’ll disagree indefinitely here. I can only point out that in anybody’s judgment, avoiding a goal is clearly more important than a booking, and usually even more than a red card. So, logically, the important part in cheating is avoiding the goal, not the punishment.
> I … don’t really accept the term ‘deceptive’ fouling. In today’s game there very little place to hide in this respect.
This is plain wrong, as I already said. The evidence shows clearly that with today’s less than perfect, actually far from perfect, refereeing, a great part of PK fouls go unpunished. At least in top level football, but I strongly suspect that’s the over-all situation.
Too purist for me I’m afraid, FF. The whole subject is too nebulous, subject to opinions and judgement (which never reach the same conclusion) and most of all the vagaries of the human condition which, at the end of the day, make up all sport.
If everything was pure and concisive we’d have nothing much to talk about.
Different personalities and controversy make sport what it is. If you want to say that everyone who deliberatly breaks a rule in any game is a cheat, fair enough, but it doesn’t work for me.
> Different personalities and controversy make sport what it is. If you want to say that everyone who deliberatly breaks a rule in any game is a cheat, fair enough, but it doesn’t work for me.
Let me put it this way: everybody who does this cheats, but is not necessarily a cheat. Not much of one, anyway. I feel this needs some clarifying (and believe me I’m not saying this just to be nice to you). The problem is that the system being as it is, it invites, it almost mandates cheating. Everybody does it so you do it too, otherwise you’re in too big a disadvantage and you might as well give it up. Like in every competitive system, you need good rules and properly enforced, otherwise corruption rules. And football is a highly competitive system. So I don’t view the players who do it as the main culprits anyway. *But*, this equally applies to fouling as well as to diving. This is my main point, I don’t see them as very different in this respect, and IMO accepting one and vilifying the other one is not right at all.
About purism: call me a purist but I’d definitely prefer a game where deliberate fouling (as well as diving) would be discouraged to the point it would cease to exist. And, of course, every foul in the box would be granted a PK. Maybe we’d have less to talk about but it’d be worth it. We’d just shut up and enjoy the game.
And my guess is we’d still have what to talk about, even if less.
Nothing wrong with your points FF but I suppose my main point (which I made in the Diving section) relates to your point that “every foul in the box would be granted a PK”.
As I said, none of us can ever agree on what is a foul or a dive, even with replays, so how can this ever be defined. Your penalty is someone else’s dive and it will always be so. Same goes for fouling (deliberate or not).
But good exchange and I respect your points.
> But good exchange and I respect your points.
Same here. On this we completely agree, as it seems.
We’re talking in principle. There will be disagreement as to what was a dive and what was a foul, of course. But in principle, a dive shouldn’t be judged harsher than an intentional foul.
Also, as I said in another place, hopefully with video evidence the experts could agree on most incidents. Based on my experience so far, I’d expect it to be like this.
FF:
You are basically equating fouling and cheating. Do you really need the flaw with that argument explained to you?
The flaw is with what you’re saying. I equate *intentional* fouling with cheating.
For an act to be considered cheating, a subject must be cheated.
In this case, the subject is the referee.
Diving is cheating, because the cheating player attempts to persuade the referee to punish the defending player for an act the latter did not commit, i.e. the player cheats the referee.
Intentional fouling is not cheating, because it is plain for the whole world, including the referee, to see that the fouling player has committed a wrong and therefore should be punished, i.e. the player commits the foul willingly, in view of the punishment he knows he will get.
There is a whole world of difference between diving and intentional fouling.